Philosophy vs. Ideology

While they can be used interchangeably under certain circumstances, there is generally an important distinction between the meaning of the terms philosophy and ideology. One is based on actual observation of the world around us and the application of logic to those observations to derive a system or method of thinking which is then applied to one’s daily life. In a very real sense, a philosophy is a way of life which may incorporate but does not embody a political agenda. On the other hand, ideology is usually based in theory, the precepts of which often have little or no connection to actual observations in the real world. And, unlike philosophy, ideology generally defines a group identity or political agenda. It is important that we understand the differences between philosophy and ideology so that we can recognize them when we encounter them in the real world.

[Note: while this is partially true, the assertion that philosophy is based in logic negates the notion that physical observation and experimentation have nothing to do with philosophy. The modern concept of science is based on the work of philosophers.]

What we understand as “conservatism” is an excellent example of a philosophy. By “conservatism,” I mean the philosophy established by and most often credited to Sir Edmund Burke. I state this because there is a difference between Burke’s philosophy of conservatism and the political notion of conservatism as expressed in contemporary American politics – but that is a subject for another post. What matters here is that Burke worked out a thorough system of thinking and dealing with the matters of social, economic, religious and political life. In a nut shell, Burke accepted change, but he stressed the need to change slowly, deliberately and with due consideration to the effects of change on heritage, tradition and culture. In essence, Burke sought to preserve those things which identify a people, their culture: hence the name, “Conservative.”

But note: Burke’s philosophy allowed for change. So, if advancements in technology necessitated change, or if actual observation revealed a flaw in a law or social norm, Burke’s philosophy made allowances to change, to adapt to the times. In addition, Burke’s philosophy not only allowed for individual rights and liberty, it advocated their protection through the rule of law. The same cannot be said about an ideology.

2a :a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture

b:a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

c:the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

What we generally refer to as “Collectivism” is the perfect example of ideology, but there are many forms of collectivism. For the matter at hand, I will focus on Marxism. Marx did not develop a philosophy; he developed an ideology. We know this because his ideas were based entirely on theory and supposition and not on actual observation. As a result, the thinking of those who follow Marx is fixed. It has not evolved with time, nor has it acknowledged real world evidence that contradicts Marx’s theories. As a result, those who follow Marx have not evolved or adapted their thinking. They are confined by – defined by — their ideology. For them, it is their only reality. This leads to the creation of ideologues:

2:an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

An ideologue will seldom admit mistake. Because their identity cannot be separated from their ideology, to admit mistake is to admit that they and their ideas are wrong, which means their understanding of reality is also wrong. Quite understandably, when they fail, this inability to separate themselves from their ideology leads the ideologue to “double-down” on their ideology. They will assert that their ideas are not wrong and they didn’t fail, they just were not executed properly, or by the right people, or any number of excuses. The ideologue can never accept responsibility as that is an admission of failure, which is an admission of being wrong. So, “naturally,” the solution (in the ideologue’s mind) is to assert their ideas on others through the use of force: so that their ideas cannot fail and they are ultimately proven correct. Unfortunately, if they encounter too much resistance to their use of force, the ideologue tends to exhibit a rather nasty tendency to seek the elimination of his/her opposition. A classic example of what I am trying to explain can be found in the words of Karl Marx, himself:

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.

However, before we leave this subject and I close this post, there is an important point we need to be aware of that could be used to deceive you into believing my argument is incorrect. I stated that the ideologue does not adapt to changing times, and I will defend this assertion. But an ideologue may well point to changes in their method of pursuing their goal as “proof” that they adapt and, therefore, cannot be an ideologue – at least, not by my definition. Sadly, if you encounter such an assertion, you have actually encountered evidence in my favor, as this is fallacious reasoning. I did not say that the ideologue’s methods do not change; I said their ideology does not change. These are not the same thing.

If my ideology is my destination (in Marx’s case, Communism), but I change the route I am trying to take to get there (say, from violent revolution to gradual, progressive changes through legislation and cultural engineering), then have I changed my destination? And what if I not only change the road, but also the means of transportation I use to travel it (rather than stressing direct democracy, maybe the student of Marx might try regulation to achieve the changes they desire)? So, if I change the path and the vehicle, have I proven that my thinking can adapt? No. All I changed is the road I am traveling and the vehicle I am using to get to where I am going, but my destination remains the same. So, be careful and watch for these sort of rhetorical traps. In all probability, the ideologue most likely doesn’t even understand that they are traps. To them, it is just a reasonable sounding rationalization of their ideology made necessary by the fact that “they can’t possibly be wrong.”

11 thoughts on “Philosophy vs. Ideology”

Belief in the God of Abraham is now and ideology in the minds of most. Just as I found out this morning from a couple of Republican and Democrat Centrist (really Progressives) that because I have my life ordered God first, Family second and Country third I am a Crazy Rightwinger from the South.

We are now almost full circle and Biblical Prophecy is really in play. As we go forward, there will be no reverse, Christians will have to prepare for persecution. As the situation deteriorates there will be ample opportunity for us to minister to those that are in despair.

Can you imagine the utter despair those without faith will suffer when they realize those they voted for have cast them to the trash heap. The expected they would be housed, feed, educated and medically taken care of by right rather than by self reliance but their situation continues to deteriorate into poverty.

All one has to do is look at the numbers of those on government handouts since Obama was elected President.

I know, brother — believe me, I know. And, at once, it is a cause for both great morning and great joy. But that is hard to explain tot he lost. Just as it is hard to explain to them that the lifestyle they think people should live IS the Christian walk. They just reject it because it comes from God and not man, and that is the reason mankind keeps repeating his mistakes: because he has yet to learn he is not God.

As for prophecy: I believe you are correct. If I understand the warnings correctly, we have entered the final act before His return. There will be no more reprieves this time. This time, things play out until the end. I only hope Christ’s people are ready for this as much will be asked of us.

Hasn’t every era at one point believed that it was the “final act” ? I mean every generation has seen its fair share of “near end” experiences so to speak. So wouldn’t this mean that every generation has gone through these warnings and prayers to be saved?

Yes, they have. However, if we are looking at things strictly from Bible prophecy, this is the first generation that has met all the requirements before the time starts where Christ said there will be no more reprieves. Before now, there were always pieces of prophecy that had not been fulfilled. For example: until 1945, no one could figure out the plague mentioned in Zachariah’s prophecy. Nor could we explain why it would take 7 months to clean up the battle field after the battle of Gog and Megog, or why it would require special workers, or why the bodies would be buried in a special place where no one could pass through. Now we can understand all of this in terms of nuclear weapons, which means that the last part of Daniel now comes into play — where he said the last parts of prophecy are for the last generation to figure out and not until.

Now, we could still be wrong, or there could still be YEARS before things come to a point, but that is not to say we can’t still be in the end game. I can speak only for myself when I say I believe we are, but many, MANY who study Scriptural prophecy are coming to this same conclusion. In the end, it doesn’t matter much. Christians have the same job to do no matter what. You’ll just have to seek your own answers, and I wish you success in that journey 🙂

By this definition, conservatism and Christianity are a way of life. They provide a system by which the individual can work through problems that is based in the real world. However, they do not dictate only one option in doing so.

And ideology is more of a list of dictates that does tell the follower what they must do in a given situation. There is seldom any room for free choice and seldom any basis in reality.

I’d say the difference between a person with an ideology and an ideologue lies mostly in how willing a person is to question their beliefs. By that, I do not mean they have to be wishy-washy. I mean they have to be sincerely willing to look critically at what they believe and why and — if they find a flaw in their beliefs — be willing to change it. However, once a person crosses the point where they refuse to question anything they believe, they turn that ideology into a religion. As I see it, this is the point where one becomes an ideologue.